Atavar
Member
Legal
49
Illegal
1
of course that does not address what happens at trial where even using reloads is a risk.
49
Illegal
1
of course that does not address what happens at trial where even using reloads is a risk.
Are Penetration and Expansion minimums enough?
- Thread starter WrongHanded
- Start date
People used to believe that it did..
RetiredUSNChief
Member
Are Penetration and Expansion minimums enough?
The minimum is just that: the minimum. However, too many people like to look at this as an "absolute". It's not...it's simply "the minimum", a standard established based on an FBI study and whose performance is based upon standards set forth in their testing requirements which you touched upon in your original posting.
The minimum may not be enough for every scenario. It SHOULD be enough for most scenarios whose conditions do not significantly deviate from their testing standards.
Change those conditions, however, and now maybe the minimum is no longer enough.
What might those conditions be? Any number of things, really.
Barriers between the shooter and the shootee, for example, be that car doors, glass, housing structures, etc.
Whether the target is wearing any kind of body armor.
How far away the target is.
Make up your own list...heck, make it outlandish. Like what about if the shooter is carrying a backpack in front of his body? What if it's winter time and he's layered in clothing? What if he's got "homemade armor" with stuff packed in multiple vest pockets? What if he's hugely obese?
The minimum is a reasonable starting point at which certain terminal ballistics can be reliably demonstrated under certain testing conditions. That's it. Ammunition which does not perform up to these minimum standards are likely to not perform as well. Ammunition which performs better than the minimum standards are likely to perform better. That's about all you can say about it.
Don't over think it.
The minimum is just that: the minimum. However, too many people like to look at this as an "absolute". It's not...it's simply "the minimum", a standard established based on an FBI study and whose performance is based upon standards set forth in their testing requirements which you touched upon in your original posting.
The minimum may not be enough for every scenario. It SHOULD be enough for most scenarios whose conditions do not significantly deviate from their testing standards.
Change those conditions, however, and now maybe the minimum is no longer enough.
What might those conditions be? Any number of things, really.
Barriers between the shooter and the shootee, for example, be that car doors, glass, housing structures, etc.
Whether the target is wearing any kind of body armor.
How far away the target is.
Make up your own list...heck, make it outlandish. Like what about if the shooter is carrying a backpack in front of his body? What if it's winter time and he's layered in clothing? What if he's got "homemade armor" with stuff packed in multiple vest pockets? What if he's hugely obese?
The minimum is a reasonable starting point at which certain terminal ballistics can be reliably demonstrated under certain testing conditions. That's it. Ammunition which does not perform up to these minimum standards are likely to not perform as well. Ammunition which performs better than the minimum standards are likely to perform better. That's about all you can say about it.
Don't over think it.
fastbolt
Member
Happenstance (luck). The wide variety of how people react to GSW injuries, psychologically and physically.
Remember when the FBI was trying to come up with a way to determine the desired threat's reaction and subsequent actions when suffering a GSW? Their eventual decision was that only falling down was good. Does falling down mean the threat was out of the fight? Well, they seemed to hope so, adding that the threat being unable to continue their violent volitional action was the goal.
How does a handgun GSW make that happen? There's the sixty-four thousand dollar question.
I was thinking of starting a thread on this subject (both before and after this thread was posted), although with rifles/shotguns included in the discussion. I think there are a lot of factors and variables that go into this. Both in terms of what affects tissue, and what effect you want on the tissue.
For example, to what extent do each of the following play in tissue damage at any one point in the terminal ballistic path: weight, velocity, caliber (of the current projectile(s)), momentum, energy, energy transfer, expansion (the process), fragmentation (both the process and the fragments), bullet shape (i.e. round-nose making a smaller hole than flat nose, or those fancy monolithic rounds).
Some people say you want the bullet to stop in the target, so no recoil is "wasted" and so there's less risk to bystanders. What about having the round having maximum diameter wound channel even during the exit, so you are going to cause as much damage as possible and be much more likely to stop the threat?
We focus on damage to the vitals. But what about just doing damage in general? If I can do severe muscle damage (and nothing else), that's going to immediately affect an attacker's ability to continue, and quickly contribute to blood loss. So maybe something at the extreme other end (like say a Glazer safety slug) might still have impressive results in stopping an attack, even if it's not penetrating to the vitals.
I'll join in the devil's defense. In order to reliably expand, you need a combination of size and speed. Compared to a .357 magnum, the 9mm lacks speed. Compared to a .45 ACP, a 9mm lacks size. Advancements in 9mm technology are aimed at overcoming those gaps. That's why, for the most part, advancements that affect the 9mm aren't as impactful on more powerful rounds like .357 magnum and .45 ACP, but are very impactful on rounds like .380 ACP and the recent creation of .30 Super Carry.
If you have a situation where .357 magnum is significantly more reliable than a 9mm, then you have a tradeoff between the reliable effectiveness of a .357 magnum revolver that likely holds 5-6 rounds, or the 9mm that likely holds 12-17 rounds and can be reloaded quicker. On the other hand, if the 9mm is brought up to a similar level off effectiveness, then the tradeoff favors the 9mm quite a bit more.
But modern premium 9mm loads do expand reliably.
That particular comment was about less modern 9mm loads.
C-grunt
Member
Back to the original question "is a 22 mag that mettes FBI threshold of penetration and expansion make it all a person needs". My answer is no. While those two criteria are part of the testing, they are not the only thing to consider. For sake of argument lets just only focus on duty/fighting handguns. That's what the testing was designed around. Can a 22 short be effective for protection? Yes. But it's obviously not what we are talking about. The "duty calibers" are what we are talking about. Those generally are considered 38 Special, 9mm, 40, 357 Sig, and 45. 357 Mag and 10mm can also be on that list but are usually downloaded quite a bit in their "duty loads" and the full powered loads usually found in hunting form, are really more powerful than necessary. The rounds below the 38 Special/9mm line tend to have some issues.
Penetration and expansion are needed and good things to have. But penetration in gel is just a test to compare bullets in a lab environment. Through testing they found that bullets that were proven in gunfighting exhibited certain characteristics in the gel.
For a bullet to be a good gunfighting round it needs to get to the vitals and when it gets there it needs to be able to inflict large amounts of damage to the vitals.
Getting to the vitals means possibly having to get through barriers. Arms being the most common. Is the 22 mag round going to have the mass to punch through the radius or ulna bones, then through a rib and still get deep into the chest? In my experience, no. If I get a peripheral hit I want enough damage to render than body part useless. The duty calibers have the power to completely destroy large bones and joints. The smaller calibers, not so much.
Past the bones and such, is the round going to cause enough damage to quickly shut down the organ it strikes? Ive see people shot or stabbed and major blood vessels or organs were nicked or hit with a small low powered bullet. Was it really bad for them? Yes. Did it really effect their behavior and actions? No. Ive seen people completely ambulatory with holes in their heart. The holes weren't big enough to cause a massive decrease in blood flow through the system and the wounds to the heart itself weren't bad enough to stop the heart from beating.
A year or two ago I had a female victim that got stabbed in the chest with a kitchen knife while she was sleeping in her bed. The blade went in just to the side of her heart but di slice the side of her heart open a little bit. She was rushed to the hospital where they found the wound to the heart was not bleeding profusely and the heart was still beating. Instead of rushing her into emergency surgery at 4 AM they stuck a tube into her chest which measured how much blood was coming out of her heart. They watched her like a hawk to make sure it didn't get worse, but in the end we waited the 2 hours until the heart surgeon specialist came in to do the surgery. She was completely conscious and talked with me the whole time.
So, do I think a 22 mag with a good hollow point that expanded to .36" would work if I shot a guy standing in front of me? Yeah. Would it penetrate enough and expand enough to get to a major organ/vessel and cause enough damage to be a fight changer? Probably. Do I think it's going to do that after going though a forearm? No.
In my experience all of the "duty rounds" have the speed, size, and mass to do what is needed for gunfighting given proper bullet choice. So once you get to the level of the duty round, choosing one over the other comes down more to different attributes and all are a compromise of some sorts.
Penetration and expansion are needed and good things to have. But penetration in gel is just a test to compare bullets in a lab environment. Through testing they found that bullets that were proven in gunfighting exhibited certain characteristics in the gel.
For a bullet to be a good gunfighting round it needs to get to the vitals and when it gets there it needs to be able to inflict large amounts of damage to the vitals.
Getting to the vitals means possibly having to get through barriers. Arms being the most common. Is the 22 mag round going to have the mass to punch through the radius or ulna bones, then through a rib and still get deep into the chest? In my experience, no. If I get a peripheral hit I want enough damage to render than body part useless. The duty calibers have the power to completely destroy large bones and joints. The smaller calibers, not so much.
Past the bones and such, is the round going to cause enough damage to quickly shut down the organ it strikes? Ive see people shot or stabbed and major blood vessels or organs were nicked or hit with a small low powered bullet. Was it really bad for them? Yes. Did it really effect their behavior and actions? No. Ive seen people completely ambulatory with holes in their heart. The holes weren't big enough to cause a massive decrease in blood flow through the system and the wounds to the heart itself weren't bad enough to stop the heart from beating.
A year or two ago I had a female victim that got stabbed in the chest with a kitchen knife while she was sleeping in her bed. The blade went in just to the side of her heart but di slice the side of her heart open a little bit. She was rushed to the hospital where they found the wound to the heart was not bleeding profusely and the heart was still beating. Instead of rushing her into emergency surgery at 4 AM they stuck a tube into her chest which measured how much blood was coming out of her heart. They watched her like a hawk to make sure it didn't get worse, but in the end we waited the 2 hours until the heart surgeon specialist came in to do the surgery. She was completely conscious and talked with me the whole time.
So, do I think a 22 mag with a good hollow point that expanded to .36" would work if I shot a guy standing in front of me? Yeah. Would it penetrate enough and expand enough to get to a major organ/vessel and cause enough damage to be a fight changer? Probably. Do I think it's going to do that after going though a forearm? No.
In my experience all of the "duty rounds" have the speed, size, and mass to do what is needed for gunfighting given proper bullet choice. So once you get to the level of the duty round, choosing one over the other comes down more to different attributes and all are a compromise of some sorts.
481
Member
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2009
- Messages
- 2,424
I'd posit that looking one or even two aspect(s) of terminal ballistic performance (penetration, expansion, etc.) to the exclusion of all else is an (over?) simplified approach that will lead to erroneous conclusions because all other factors are ignored in that process.
Shootings involving human beings are stochastic events and would probably be best addressed by a comprehensive approach that considers all relevant factors. These events can even be modeled but, as with all stochastic modeling, any prediction made will inevitably contain a tremendous amount of uncertainty due to the highly variable nature of shootings which are influenced by shot placement and human physiology. Even with a comprehensive approach, predicted minimums would also be subject to the same high degree of uncertainty due to the complexity of the system—human physiology—involved.
The three currently existing US Army BRL provisional incapacitation models used by the military to assess, develop, and match small arms munitions against those of our adversaries are probably the best option that we have shy of getting into FEA software that costs tens of thousands of dollars to obtain and requires technical competence beyond that of the ''ordinary, average guy'' to use. The US Army BRL provisional incapacitation models include projectile mass, diameter, impact velocity, incremental kinetic energy expenditure within their structure which makes them reasonably comprehensive in their design. Mechanical behavior of projectiles within the human body—and even in specific organs and types of tissue—is within the capability of FEA software, but it is considerably more complex to use than the US Army BRL provisional incapacitation models which were created prior to the advanced digital computational capabilities we have today. Considering that the US military was able to successfully match the capabilities and effectiveness of our battlefield adversaries' small arms munitions using the US Army BRL provisional incapacitation models demonstrates that they were a tremendously effective methodology even though they are quite a bit less comprehensive than FEA software.
Because of your specific experience in training and exposure to the right folks during your professional tenure, you've probably got a better sense of what the FBI intended by deciding that ''only falling down was good'' as a measure of incapacitation or the inability of a bad actor to continue with violent volitional action.
Is it your position that the FBI saw the act of ''falling down'' as an involuntary physiological inability (or incapacity) to continue, even if the bad actor still wanted to do so?
Shootings involving human beings are stochastic events and would probably be best addressed by a comprehensive approach that considers all relevant factors. These events can even be modeled but, as with all stochastic modeling, any prediction made will inevitably contain a tremendous amount of uncertainty due to the highly variable nature of shootings which are influenced by shot placement and human physiology. Even with a comprehensive approach, predicted minimums would also be subject to the same high degree of uncertainty due to the complexity of the system—human physiology—involved.
The three currently existing US Army BRL provisional incapacitation models used by the military to assess, develop, and match small arms munitions against those of our adversaries are probably the best option that we have shy of getting into FEA software that costs tens of thousands of dollars to obtain and requires technical competence beyond that of the ''ordinary, average guy'' to use. The US Army BRL provisional incapacitation models include projectile mass, diameter, impact velocity, incremental kinetic energy expenditure within their structure which makes them reasonably comprehensive in their design. Mechanical behavior of projectiles within the human body—and even in specific organs and types of tissue—is within the capability of FEA software, but it is considerably more complex to use than the US Army BRL provisional incapacitation models which were created prior to the advanced digital computational capabilities we have today. Considering that the US military was able to successfully match the capabilities and effectiveness of our battlefield adversaries' small arms munitions using the US Army BRL provisional incapacitation models demonstrates that they were a tremendously effective methodology even though they are quite a bit less comprehensive than FEA software.
Because of your specific experience in training and exposure to the right folks during your professional tenure, you've probably got a better sense of what the FBI intended by deciding that ''only falling down was good'' as a measure of incapacitation or the inability of a bad actor to continue with violent volitional action.
Is it your position that the FBI saw the act of ''falling down'' as an involuntary physiological inability (or incapacity) to continue, even if the bad actor still wanted to do so?
481
Member
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2009
- Messages
- 2,424
More accurately, in order to ensure reliable expansion, domestic ammunition manufacturers need only consider the compressive failure strength (pressure) of the materials they are using for their JHP designs.
Ignoring inertial effects (density, ρ) within the target for the moment, the pressure that drives projectile expansion is strictly a function of velocity as indicated by Bernoulli's equation, P = ½ρV² . Given the high velocities that .357 Magnum JHPs were driven to in the past (where legal liability wasn't quite the land-mine that it is today), would certainly explain why the .357 Magnum did so well and why people, like Lee Jurras of Super-Vel, pursued the production of high-velocity ammunition as they did.
fastbolt
Member
Well, while the 1989 FBI paper contained a lot of discussion points, the one that I referenced was this:
To judge a caliber’s effectiveness, consider how many people hit with it failed to fall down and look at
where they were hit. Of the successes and failures, analyze how many were hit in vital organs, rather
than how many were killed or not, and correlate that with an account of exactly what they did when they were hit. Did they fall down, or did they run, fight, shoot, hide, crawl, stare, shrug, give up and surrender? ONLY falling down is good. All other reactions are failures to incapacitate, evidencing the ability to act with volition, and thus able to choose to continue to try to inflict harm.
However, there's also another definition from that era of what was considered a successful One Shot Stop, which was one in which "the subject dropped, gave up, or did not run more than 10 feet."
A little different, but we still have circle back to trying to divine whether someone stopped their violent actions by reason of psychological or physiological causes.
The discussion points contained in the paper cover some basic primer material from that period, and while there have been some ongoing developments in science and the study of such events, it's still a decent primer for both fundamental insights and provides an interesting snapshot of the thinking of that time, meaning in the early days of LE deciding to begin taking a serious look into the subject from both scientific and 'street' (outside the lab) perspectives.
For those folks in this thread who have never read the '89 Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness, written by Special Agent UREY W. PATRICK:
https://gundata.org/images/fbi-handgun-ballistics.pdf
Personally, I think in a perfect world we'd see a violent suspect/attacker not only immediately stop their violent actions and fall down, and also physically lose their ability to continue any violent volitional acts, but also drop and lose physical control of whatever weapon (or force) they'd been using that caused them to be shot in the first place.
Of course, it's not a perfect world, so we get what we get and have to deal with it accordingly. I doubt you'd find many cops (or private persons) who would complain if an attacker they shot suddenly stopped their violent actions because they were shot, and didn't continue, regardless of the reason.
Not sure chasing the idea of the perfect immediate incapacitation model isn't the same thing as chasing a Will-o'-the-wisp, but we do seem to be learning more along the way.
You know, if you'd asked me this question when I was still working, or at least had an interest in continuing to instruct, I'd have likely answered ... I dunno, I just work here.
Nowadays? The 'minimum' that interest me the most are whether my skills can still produce the 'minimum proficiency' according to my standards. The gear, meaning gun, caliber and ammunition? Not something that keeps me awake at nights. If I carry gear, I carry it with the full expectation of possibly having to fight with it, regardless of what it is. Shades of nuance versus the vagaries of reality.
Last edited:
fastbolt
Member
Can you chamber it in a pocket-holster sized handgun? Think NAA will make something chambered in it? How about a diminutive pistol with a tip-up barrel?
Can you chamber it in a pocket-holster sized handgun? Think NAA will make something chambered in it? How about a diminutive pistol with a tip-up barrel?
I'm sure Bond Arms can get something working! Something about bottlenecked rounds and revolvers not making a great team makes me think that there probably won't be a 5-shot snub version anytime soon
KansasTrapper77
Member
An argument/statement I hear often (paraphrasing) is. “With modern powders and bullet design, 9mm is much stronger than old 9mm and has made other conventional calibers obsolete. You get more capacity with greater capabilities.”
And every time I hear that I can’t help but wonder, did these modern technologies not translate into the other calibers as well? If 9mm is so much more potent what happened to .40 and .45?
I carry a .45 because its what we had growing up, its all I shot and its what we reloaded for. Nowadays the talk of the town is if you’re carrying anything other than a 9mm you’re an egotistical fool. And half of me thinks maybe I should sell my carry 45 and replace it with a 9mm. I guess the 9mm guys and I subscribe to different insurances. They go for extra capacity, I go for extra weight~energy.
P.S. I wouldn’t want to be shot with a .22LR let alone a .22Mag. They are potent.
And every time I hear that I can’t help but wonder, did these modern technologies not translate into the other calibers as well? If 9mm is so much more potent what happened to .40 and .45?
I carry a .45 because its what we had growing up, its all I shot and its what we reloaded for. Nowadays the talk of the town is if you’re carrying anything other than a 9mm you’re an egotistical fool. And half of me thinks maybe I should sell my carry 45 and replace it with a 9mm. I guess the 9mm guys and I subscribe to different insurances. They go for extra capacity, I go for extra weight~energy.
P.S. I wouldn’t want to be shot with a .22LR let alone a .22Mag. They are potent.
I believe I said this earlier in the thread, regarding .357 magnum. In general, you need speed and/or size to properly control a round. Compared to the 9mm, the .45 has size, and .357 magnum has speed. Some of the advancements made to the 9mm help our understanding of terminal ballistics in general. But many of them apply more to catching the 9mm up to the bigger and/or faster brethren.
An oversimplified version is that if you have a 9mm round that penetrates 10" and a .357 magnum round that penetrates 17", then an advancement that will give you 30% more penetration would help the 9mm round get up to spec, but take the .357 magnum out of spec. This advancement may be applied to the .357 magnum in other ways, but in particular it doesn't help right here.
There's a difference in lethality and "stopping power". Something that kills an attacker after he's beaten me to death doesn't stop me from dying. (Biologists will tell you the same thing about snakes and why, for the most part, venomous snakes don't want to bite you - because they die before you do, and that's not a good fight to take).
JTHunter
Member
Someone in this thread commented on the apparent lack of various enforcement agencies currently using the .357 round. I suspect that this is because of the low number of rounds the gun can hold compared to the 9mm. Considering how many cases of police shootings with high round counts with tiny percentages of actual hits on target, there may need to be some "remedial training" done to try and improve accuracy.
That being said, one thing I have noticed about the ammo differences between 9mm and .357 is the broader range of ammo available for the .357. IIRC, most 9mm is limited to about 120 - 130 grains with most being 124/125 grains. There is one outlier to this and that is the 147 (148?) grain "FBI" load. However, in just the .357 are loads ranging from 110 grain up to 158 grain. I have even heard (but not seen) that there is a 180 grain load. Then, if you add in the .38 Special loads, that range can drop down to as low as 90 grains. The only way to get better performance out of a .357 than factory loads is to "roll your own". Reloading lets you increase the pressure and power above many factory loads.
The only real advantage 9mm has over the .357 is "quantity" per load-out.
That being said, one thing I have noticed about the ammo differences between 9mm and .357 is the broader range of ammo available for the .357. IIRC, most 9mm is limited to about 120 - 130 grains with most being 124/125 grains. There is one outlier to this and that is the 147 (148?) grain "FBI" load. However, in just the .357 are loads ranging from 110 grain up to 158 grain. I have even heard (but not seen) that there is a 180 grain load. Then, if you add in the .38 Special loads, that range can drop down to as low as 90 grains. The only way to get better performance out of a .357 than factory loads is to "roll your own". Reloading lets you increase the pressure and power above many factory loads.
The only real advantage 9mm has over the .357 is "quantity" per load-out.
KansasTrapper77
Member
I love the idea of stopping power as I publicly admitted to carrying a .45. But the truth of the matter is, hits to vitals such as brain, spine, and heart are what drop an attacker immediately. If you put a .22 mag in someone’s spine or across the top of the heart, they will collapse. My .45 just buys me insurance. It will expand, doing more damage to soft tissue and lungs and have a minuscule higher chance of hitting a vital. A .22 will kill you as dead an elephant gun if the bullet goes in the right place, the larger more powerful you go the more insurance you buy.
So in response to the original question, is penetration and energy all that matters? My response would be no, but kinda. Placement with enough penetration and energy to get there is all that matters. And a .22 mag will usually do both. Just with a little less insurance.
JTHunter
Member
I love the idea of stopping power as I publicly admitted to carrying a .45. But the truth of the matter is, hits to vitals such as brain, spine, and heart are what drop an attacker immediately. If you put a .22 mag in someone’s spine or across the top of the heart, they will collapse. My .45 just buys me insurance. It will expand, doing more damage to soft tissue and lungs and have a minuscule higher chance of hitting a vital. A .22 will kill you as dead an elephant gun if the bullet goes in the right place, the larger more powerful you go the more insurance you buy.
So in response to the original question, is penetration and energy all that matters? My response would be no, but kinda. Placement with enough penetration and energy to get there is all that matters. And a .22 mag will usually do both. Just with a little less insurance.
While putting a .22 Mag in the spine may drop them, the implication there is they were shot from behind, as in retreating. Not good. There is less likelihood that the .22 Mag can do sufficient damage from the front and may not even penetrate to the spine, depending on clothing and body mass.
The .22 Mag can easily reach the heart and, preferably, the aorta. The problem there is that your target is less than 2" in diameter and behind one of the thicker, stronger bones in the body, the sternum. You would need to be able to shoot from slightly to the person's right (your left) to angle it in and miss the sternum.
Leon tP
Member
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2021
- Messages
- 216
I would say, No!
Can it be made to work? Sure, I grew up on a dairy and put down my fair share of bovine with a 22 mag but the cows weren't attacking me either AND I think most folks would rather have a greater margin of error in shot placement and penetration concerns.
First off 150% of .22 cal is .33 caliber. That's not very impressive. I would suggest adding a volumetric wound standard to the established FBI minimum requirements. It would make for a better minimum standard. Not perfect but better.
The Thompson-LaGarde tests seem to suggest that a wound mass of about 220 grams (.485 lbs, 7.76 oz.) of destroyed tissue consistently brought down a ~1000 lb steer. Of course, exact wound tracks are not mentioned but all tracks were considered "non-vital."
Bullet Penetration p.272
Why non-vital? We pretty much already know the outcome of a perfect shot so it's the imperfect shots that are more interesting and more common.
Furthermore, extrapolating from the 1000 lbs steer to a more human size target, a mass of 40 grams (0.088 lbs, 1.41 oz.) was put forward as a minimum.
Given that water density is roughly 1g/ml, 1g/cc (40cc or 2.441 in^3) was suggested as a minimum wound volume threshold. A .22 Magnum that expands to 150% (.33 cal) and penetrates 12" would give us a wound volume of about 1in^3 (~1.026in^3).
Now consider a 9mm (.355") that expands (150%) to .5325" and penetrates 12", it results in a wound volume of ~ 2.67in^3 and this exceeds the suggested minimum.
Using this same criteria above, we see that all the current service calibers that meet the FBI standard (12" and 150%) also meet the greater than 2.441in^3 minimum volume suggested. No surprise there.
If I didn't mention some aspect, I'm just trying to be brief.
The Karate Kid has many great life lessons for young and old but this is what people focus on!
Crane Technique
Well said
Last edited:
C-grunt
Member
147 grain HST, 147 grain Gold Dot, and 147 grain Ranger are all very popular LE loads.
While the bulk of cheap ammo is 115 and 124 grain, the 147 grain hollow point has been in widespread common use for decades.
C-grunt
Member
What are we talking about where that comparison makes sense?
Atavar
Member
Projectile size and weight and speed. A smaller hammer swings faster but a bigger heavier hammer delivers more force. Ask anyone who has ever pounded a nail.
Ask the same question of martial artists who use striking weapons. In fact ask the martial artists who use piercing weapons too, is an epee or a lance more deadly?
In general bigger is better.. more power, grunt grunt
Not necessarily.
KansasTrapper77
Member
You’re getting into the weeds. Talking about angles and implying if I hit something in the spine, I shot it from behind.
I think you underestimate the penetration abilities of a 22 mag. I know as I have done it before it will travel all the way through a bovine skull. If it will pass through the top of a cow skull I wouldn’t hesitate to assume it would pass through a sternum into the heart.
What I keep coming back to is, larger centerfire cartridges buy more insurance. But if I was offered a pointy stick or a .22 Mag revolver to defend myself I’m picking the .22 magnum every time.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
